Obama knows nothing about either topic. Still. And his dangerous socialist beliefs are a very bad match with his narcissism and sociopathy. He does seem to enjoy celebrity-seeking stunts, however.
I would support anyone that works for the .gov getting drug tests. Most corporations have drug tests, why not all .gov employees?
So . . . the result of this will be 1. Cost of testing 2. drug addicts with no means of support will now have no welfare/food stamps We now have more desperate drug addicts needing money for not only drugs but food and shelter . . . .. what the worse that could happen??? . . . I hope the new money will goto more cops then again . . .it would continue a cycle make something that will make more criminal behavior then complain about the criminal behavior then get more cops and build more prisons So . . NO MONEY to prevent these folx from becoming criminals BUT Lots of money to apprehend and house them . . . . that is just great Rocket River
Ditto. When you say ".gov," I hope you mean all local, state and federal goverment employees. There is precedent to do this -- just look at any sports team. Random testing with no notice sure would cut down on the bureaucracy and get rid of a lot of elected officials as well -- far out and far-reaching stuff. It would never be passed, though.
Elected officials definitely aren't tested. I remeber that Washington DC mayor what's-his-name. I googled around a bit. Seems like tests for government workers aren't universal. There is also debate about what type of tests are allowed.
Just think if we had random drug tests in the D&D. T_J and his ilk would be banned and we would all be actually debating real issues.
HO HO HO The_Conquistador is drug free, STD free, and owns a car. If I had voted for Obama, I would truly be unique.
Drug users should not be given food stamps. The only federal assistance they might deserve is to be put in rehab clinics. Giving them food stamps doesn't help them get off drugs. Stupid idea because cost > benefit.
nobody gets food stamps for the most part the eighties called, they want their food stamps back edit: they receive cards
Ahhh, so we should be testing all the bank execs? You know, like the guys who took tax dollars because they failed, payed each other bonuses the size of the GNP of a small country, and are now quitting their jobs so they don't have to face continued scrutiny? What's so random about singling out the poor because they NEED .gov help? It's a blurry line at best, and as usual, abusing people's privacy and freedom in the name of "what's best for everyone" is just a bad idea. Maybe it starts somewhat innocently and with good purpose in mind... but then what's next? How long before other privacies and freedom are taken from others in the name of what a few people in .gov think is a good idea, or right or wrong? Who's in charge, where is the line drawn? This money could be better spent in other ways. Aside from that, this will cost more than it saves, will hurt more than it helps. It's one of those fuzzy ideas that makes sense when you hear it, but wouldn't serve it's function or the greater good, in the real world, at least not in my opinion.
It would be an invasion of privacy. Being poor isn't an excuse for government to discriminate against you, to toss away your rights under the constitution, to treat you like you are on a level lower than those more fortunate.
No, but it sure would be nice. On the other hand, welfare checks should come with strings attached, similar to Wall Street's bailout cash. Those strings should include not doing anything illegal. That is a fair trade.
But its ok to tax 90% on a specific group? If you take handouts from the government, then I do agree you are at their mercy.... and that includes RDT's.
I think the point is that convicted drug users are singled out with respect to being unable to obtain food stamps (at least in 22? states). Meanwhile someone with a molestation, rape, theft or murder conviction on their record can receive food stamps.
